• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay

The_Falcon

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Schindler's Lift said:
I look at it as more of an officer safety issue actually and not TPS telling them they must have paid duty officers at all.  Obviously the school requested a paid duty presence and if TPS requires their officers to work in pairs then so be it.  Would someone be able to tell mariomike that he was needed for a paid duty but they only needed the ambulance driver because the event organizer had their own first aid staff to handle the hands on care? 

Yes it was "only" 55 8th graders but it was also potentially 110 parents, school staff, other assorted family members and visitors.  Others are more familiar with Toronto then I am so they know the school neighborhood better then I do but if someone from the community wanted to cause a problem (or engage in an active shooter incident) I'd say that two paid duty officers would be more effective then just one.  Not to say they could handle things single handedly but with two you have a better chance to triage the situation and call for backup. 

One officer to direct traffic, perhaps.  Other then that I'd think it prudent to have partners.

I don't have an issue with what the school was quoted, if you read the article you will see, this is something they have to taken upon themselves to have (paid duties). If you have the money and you want paid duties, go for it, I say.

What I (and others) have an issue with is for example a work crew is hired by the city to repair something in the road or the road itself. When that company goes to get the necessary permits they are told they must have paid duties on site, and the real contentious issue is this "policy" is inconsistently applied through out the city, some road crews will have paid duties others in different parts won't.  When this was in the news a year or two ago, people were trying to seek clarification and it just became a game of pass the buck:  TPS "We don't set the rules XYZ Dept does" XYZ "Don't know what TPS is talking about, you need to speak with ABC Dept" ABC" you were told the wrong information by XYZ, you need to talk with TPS".
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
Schindler's Lift said:
Would someone be able to tell mariomike that he was needed for a paid duty but they only needed the ambulance driver because the event organizer had their own first aid staff to handle the hands on care? 

Never work without your partner.

Things we took into consideration for Paid Duties were, the size of the event/how many people, time of year and type of weather, how many hours or days it would run, what lighting was available for night-time hours, indoor or outdoor, alcohol, demographics, what incidents have occurred in the past, was it a sporting event etc.

The police had their own event planners who worked in conjunction with ours.

Schindler's Lift said:
Others are more familiar with Toronto then I am so they know the school neighborhood better then I do but if someone from the community wanted to cause a problem (or engage in an active shooter incident) I'd say that two paid duty officers would be more effective then just one.

It's an old working class neighbourhood that has seen better days. Probably a bit rougher than most. Not much through traffic. Lots of kids playing ball in the streets. I would say its outstanding feature is the hilly terrain.

Schindler's Lift said:
One officer to direct traffic, perhaps.  Other then that I'd think it prudent to have partners.

That sounds sensible. Ultimately, it's the decision of the service provider: "The number of police officers, supervisors, vehicles and hours required for the performance of a paid duty shall be assessed by the Service, based on the nature of the event."
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/paidduty/tps_784.pdf


 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
Alberta Bound said:
I don't know many long term operational members (uniformed front line types) who aren't broken at some point in their careers.

Sooner or later, it always happens to some friend in the department. Maybe even yourself. As time went by, it meant a great deal to know that we and our families would be taken care of by the City in the event anything happened.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
Saw this in another forum,

Although police don't generally call themselves civilians, in my mind if you are not subject to unlimited liability (police are not...) you are a civilian.

This was our departmental SOP about our right to refuse unsafe work. I am sure that would include police.

Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
Saw this in a forum comparing military "Unlimited liability" and emergency services "right to refuse".

even though the death penalty was still in force when I joined it hadn't been used since WW2.
If a soldier today just decided to refuse to fight, I don't see to many cases where the end result is much worse than what a police officer could get. A soldier doesn't have a police union to protect him

One American was executed for cowardice during WW2. No Canadians were.

I read this about the right to refuse unsafe work and Unlimited Liability at an American bomber station during the war,

"Aircrew are heard openly saying that they do not intend to fly to Berlin again or do any difficult sorties. This is not considered a disgrace or dishonorable."

That was an American bomber station. Likewise, although less frequent, Canadian Bomber Command aircrew could and did sometimes refuse to fly.

No death penalty or jail time.

And, that was during the war when the draft / conscription was in effect.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
186
Points
680
Saw this in a forum comparing military "Unlimited liability" and emergency services "right to refuse".




One American was executed for cowardice during WW2. No Canadians were.

I read this about the right to refuse unsafe work and Unlimited Liability at an American bomber station during the war,

"Aircrew are heard openly saying that they do not intend to fly to Berlin again or do any difficult sorties. This is not considered a disgrace or dishonorable."

That was an American bomber station. Likewise, although less frequent, Canadian Bomber Command aircrew could and did sometimes refuse to fly.

No death penalty or jail time.

And, that was during the war when the draft / conscription was in effect.
Actually certain RCAF senior leadership had a term for those who refused to fly more missions after they had been in and out of missions for months. I can't for the life of me remember what it was....but it was not complimentary.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
Actually certain RCAF senior leadership had a term for those who refused to fly more missions after they had been in and out of missions for months. I can't for the life of me remember what it was....but it was not complimentary.
LMF

Lack of Moral Fibre

Stamped in big red letters on the jacket cover of your personnel file.
 

boot12

Member
Reaction score
59
Points
430
“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”

Joseph Heller, Catch-22
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
844
Points
910
Actually certain RCAF senior leadership had a term for those who refused to fly more missions after they had been in and out of missions for months. I can't for the life of me remember what it was....but it was not complimentary.

Let me guess..... is it 'Stiff competition for promotion'?
 

PL90

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
130
They complain because they're ignorant about the risks associated with those jobs. They'd stop complaining if they were forced to deal with some guy whose high on drugs and brandishing a gun, threatening to shoot anyone who comes near him.

IMHO, the more risks there is, the higher the pay should be.
 

Eaglelord17

Full Member
Reaction score
50
Points
330
They complain because they're ignorant about the risks associated with those jobs. They'd stop complaining if they were forced to deal with some guy whose high on drugs and brandishing a gun, threatening to shoot anyone who comes near him.

IMHO, the more risks there is, the higher the pay should be.
Your absolutely right, which is why they would receive a pay deduction and many trades and labour jobs would receive a pay raise from those funds. Not only is most blue collar jobs more dangerous and lower paid, your odds of having long term injuries and developing health issues from those jobs is significantly greater as well.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
216
Points
780
They complain because they're ignorant about the risks associated with those jobs. They'd stop complaining if they were forced to deal with some guy whose high on drugs and brandishing a gun, threatening to shoot anyone who comes near him.

IMHO, the more risks there is, the higher the pay should be.
So convenience store clerks should obviously be at the top of the pay chain....
 

lenaitch

Full Member
Reaction score
93
Points
430
Your absolutely right, which is why they would receive a pay deduction and many trades and labour jobs would receive a pay raise from those funds. Not only is most blue collar jobs more dangerous and lower paid, your odds of having long term injuries and developing health issues from those jobs is significantly greater as well.
What "they"? Emergency services? If so, it would only be possible for "trades and labour" to get the raise if they were paid from the public purse.

The issue of mental health in emergency service is significant. I've not heard it being an issue in professions where the physical industry statistics are higher.
 

Eaglelord17

Full Member
Reaction score
50
Points
330
What "they"? Emergency services? If so, it would only be possible for "trades and labour" to get the raise if they were paid from the public purse.

The issue of mental health in emergency service is significant. I've not heard it being an issue in professions where the physical industry statistics are higher.
Seeing as they pay the public purse, you could just reduce the taxes 'trades and labour' pay (which could be funded by a reduction in public service pay, thereby requiring less taxes). Anything is possible if you put your mind to it.

My response was more a tongue in cheek reply if its based on the danger level though. I would like to see the public sectors pay reigned in, but more by tying it as a average multiplier to the average Canadian income than anything else.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780

I would like to see the public sectors pay reigned in, but more by tying it as a average multiplier to the average Canadian income than anything else.
Rather than cannibalizing gains made by other working people. Perhaps the question should be, instead of `I don't have it, so they shouldn't either,' to `they have it – why don't I?'

It's not a race to the bottom.
 

Eaglelord17

Full Member
Reaction score
50
Points
330
Rather than cannibalizing gains made by other working people. Perhaps the question should be, instead of `I don't have it, so they shouldn't either,' to `they have it – why don't I?' It's not a race to the bottom.
And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise.

Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.

To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required.

Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
216
Points
780
To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year.

It took an arbitrator to get us 7.5% over 4 years retro to 2018........by far the best raise I've gotten in over 20 years. Maybe somebody somewhere is averaging your 2% but I sure don't know them.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
336
Points
980
And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise.

Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.

To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required.

Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.
Do you have references to prove the inequity of the pay difference? I’d be keen to see it. I’m in the private sector and receive progressive compensation that considers inflation...and it is more regular and immediate than the fits and starts of military remuneration. Your assertion that equitable should mean equal doesn’t fly. What are the metrics to which equality is measured? And then there’s the issue of ‘higher taxes’ for someone in the private sector than someone you argue is paid unfairly more as a public servant. What tax tables are using? Last I checked, the higher the net income, the more the tax paid. How is it the opposite as you state?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
81
Points
530
(1)And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise.

Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.

To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required.

Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.
(1) Everyone pays taxes. Essentially, a percentage of my pay goes back into gov coffers to pay my own salary.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either.
We used to run into the occasional, "I pay your salary" type. I never talked back to a taxpayer. But, I used to wonder why they didn't redirect their anger towards the banks, financiers and Wall Street rather than blue collar guys out there breaking their backs for them.
 
Top